Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

His duties require him to be away from his employer’s office for ninety % or more of his working hours. ... The headnote in the report of the Cekota case states: “all three requirements of section 11(9)” — now section 8(1)(h) “must be met before a taxpayer can obtain relief. ...

In fact, the plan was to sell Kitchener City Hall and replace the market building for a $15 million office and commercial development. 3.11 In their testimony, the appellants and Mr Kelleher affirmed that the plans of the said development were not known to them and that they were even secret. 3.12 In an article, however, (Exhibit A-1) written in Kitchener-Waterloo Record on June 25,1971 and entitled “Public” ‘not kept out of city plans’ ”’ it is written: Citizens of Kitchener have not been shut out of urban renewal discussions as some critics of a $15 million downtown development claim. ... It bought undeveloped land, subdivided and serviced it and sold the lots (transcript p 62); (n) in addition to owning a cottage and a personal home, the appellant owns a property at Sunset Street in Kitchener, Ontario; (o) in the early seventies, he also owned a few small apartment buildings in Kitchener. 3.20 On the advice of his accountants, the appellant considered the transfer of the property to Tartan as a sale and the profit of $61,000 ($185,000- $63,000 = $122,000; Harper $61,000; Kelleher $61,000) as a capital gain. ...

Pearson (1) Lord Wensleydale said: “ I have been long and deeply impressed with the wisdom of the rule, now I believe, universally adopted, at least in the Courts of Law in Westminster Hall, that in construing wills, and indeed statutes, and all written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.” ... In my opinion, the rule has always been this: — if the words of an Act admit of two interpretations, then they are not clear; and if one interpretation leads to an absurdity, and the other does not, the Court will conclude that the legislature did not intend to lead to an absurdity, and will adopt the other interpretation.” ...

And the Appellant has marked with an ‘x‘ the following answer: “You are a resident of another country who will be temporarily living in Canada for / days”. ... I lost in excess of $150,000 + loss in currency depreciation in Canada since then. ...

The appellant was incorporated as a joint stock company pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario by letters patent dated November 2, 1951 under the name of Old Smokey Oils and Gas Limited which corporate name was subsequently changed to Largo Oils & Mines Limited and still later to Wardean Drilling Co, Limited, the name in the style of cause. ... Mr Abt testified that Scurry Rainbow Oil Limited paid the nominal rent on the leases for 1965 and billed the joint owners for their proportionate share. / There is no record of the payment of its share of that rent by the appellant in its financial statements but I would assume that it did so. ...

Ibid, same page: • Aluminum Company of Canada Ltd v City of Toronto, [1944] S.C.R. 267, Rand J, commented that the Famous Players case: “•.. settled that the business of one company can embrace the apparent or nominal business of another company where the conditions are such that it can be said that the second company is in fact the puppet of the first; when the directing mind and will of the former reaches into and through the corporate facade of the latter and becomes, itself, the manifesting agency. ...

I also find it difficult to regard either the appellants alone or SIP alone as the recipients, for the purposes of Section 106, of \ the interest paid by City Park and it seems to me that in truth \the recipient was the three of them, or perhaps more precisely, in respect of each payment, SIP and the particular appellant to whom the interest payment was remitted. ... But it appears to me on the evidence that SIP and the appellants acted in concert in establishing the fund and in organizing its investments and while neither appellant alone controlled $ I P to my mind it is not conceivable as a practical possibility that SIP would or could disregard the instructions or wishes of the appellants or either of them as to the voting of City Park stock or as to what City Park should do or that they would not combine their voting power in SI P itself to enforce their will if occasion to do so arose whether with respect to these pari passu ranking and somewhat interdependent loans or any other matters of concern to them. ...

To this end the directors and shareholders made an offer in December 1960 to purchase 50% of the shares of DeSpirt Mosaic & Marble Co., Limited (hereinafter referred to as DeSpirt) and its subsidiary Hydro-Silica Cleaning Company Limited. ... He said that the construction of a plant on the Scarborough land was frustrated because of the heavy financial commitments in DeSpirt, the appellants ’ own declining profit position and its loss of adequate working capital with the resultant pressure from the appellants’ bank to reduce Bestpipe’s obligation to the bank through the sale of the Scarborough land which was done because the combined pressure of the foregoing circumstances was irresistible but totally unforeseen by the appellants when the land was first acquired. ...

Equally, clearly, in my view, a determination of a question made by the Trial Division on an application by the Minister of National Revenue in the circumstances envisaged by subsections (1) and (3) of section 174, may be the subject of an appeal to this Court, because by the terms of subsection (4) that determination is final and conclusive “subject to any appeal therefrom in accordance with the Federal Court Act ”. ... The opening words of paragraph 4, “The husband shall pay to the wife, in addition to the sum set out in paragraph 3 above ”:, indicate that this is so. ...

A la page 58, le Président Thorson dit: “... The right to deduct losses does not extend to a profit from an activity other than the business in which the loss was sustained. ... When the former tenants vacated, substantial repairs were made to the building and it appears to have been rented from about January 1, 1953, at $1,500 per month, to Locke Gray & Co., a firm with which Mr. ...